*very* mysterious mound in Russia. a cone where no cone should ever be!

haven123
interesting close up's

That looks like it was molten slate or limestone not all that long ago!

reply to post by SheopleNation

I know it does, cause it's a mini cinder cone.

It's the way you say it....like it's a given...when it's not...in fact...I dare you to find any similar cinder cone...you have your google pics...go for it.

For you to be so casually certain as you seem to be...there would have to be ample evidence of such formations...all over the world. No cinder cone I've seen (online) has that protrusion in the middle. But, you seem to ignore that completely...as it doesn't fit in your already predetermined solution.

Also...by testimony of the the geologist in question, and by few posters here who claim geological knowledge...a cinder cone is not an accepted theory.

So claiming it is a crashed space craft would further his Geologist career? LMAO! I don't think so my friend.

Well...it would more likely get his name in the paper...which you seem to claim was his motive.

Ok then, What do you think it could be?

You're not interested in doing any investigation...you were sure from the post no1. As if you know for sure...when you don't.

You could have said..."to me it resembles a cinder cone...except for the weird protrusion which I haven't seen in any of the cinder cones". This sentence allowed you to throw in your opinion without risking to make a fool out of yourself if it turns out not to be a cinder cone.

As for me...I think it could be maybe something we haven't encountered before. Perhaps a natural geological process...perhaps not. Perhaps some humans/group had something to do with it...and even aliens as a last resort...but am in no way sure...even the people that went there...are not sure, what it could be.

But you are...It's a cinder cone...because you know it. Silly Russians and their educational system.

Maybe I missed your qualifications...but are you perhaps an award winning geologist ?

freestonew
reply to post by freestonew

 

here is another, closer

they say no work camps are anywhere nearby. no mines either.

freestone

looks like this www.temporarytemples.co.uk...

angkory13
Very strange.What did this thing.Was the question that came into my mind...

we will not know of it's origins until soil samples are studied under a lab's microscope

I read a few pages of the thread only but would like to give my opinion.
When I see this photo I think of when I explored the backcountry of BC Canada. I would be miles from any road or camp. There were clear cuts all over like bald patches. Some were old enough that any evidence of the machinery used was long gone.
What I see here is a clear cut where someone dumped something and then possibly blew it up or burned it. The pile is also deep enough to bury any trees or seedlings.
Could the Russians have buried something there? Yes of course. What would they bury, cover and torch way out in the wilderness like that? Some Tesla thing?
There appears to be an old road to the right of the object where you can see the path. Your mind probably dismisses it as a creek from the aerial photo but thats probably the road they used to haul all that crap in there.
Has someone grabbed a slab of it and tested it? What kind of rock is it? Is it the kind that would be a good insulator for burying something hazardous?

I watched some underground nuke tests. I watched firecrackers in sand. I watched some mud pots and geysers. I don't think that this the result of a single catastrophic event. It's too organized, and not spread enough. It seems more the result of a drilling process. Drill a hole in concrete or stone, and you end up with a similar pile of debris around the bit.

NOTE that the tops of buried trees are sticking vertically out of the silt slope on the downhill side. The fact that those trees were not blown over, burned, or mutilated, is a strong clue that the process evolved in a non-explosive, or non impact-ful way. From the closeups, it does look like a liquid was involved in the formation process.

Now, I firmly believe it was a slow, steady, "drilling" process rather than an impact or explosion, I am left wondering what the source of the drilling was.

We have a few possibilities discussed already:
Aliens
Meteor
Bombs
Human Hands
Geological

Sorry, but I want to leave aliens and meteors as last possibility. I think they are cop-out answers(IMHO). A meteor hit, or space craft hit, would have made a much shorter debris pile, much wider, and with more sparsely spread stones. The same goes for an explosion by gas ignition, or bomb. Aliens, well, I always leave that for last, since it's almost un-provable, and we have no idea why they would want to "build something" like that anyhow.

Humans. Sure, we definitely have technology that can do most of this now. It's a good possibility, except for the details of mud and layer-formed stone, seen in the closeups, and the fact that it's at least 100+ years old by eyewitness accounts. I don't think we had that kind of equipment 100 years ago readily available. The layers of slate, and flowy-type of stone in the closeups, do not seem like something humans do. It's also not humanly possible without a fairly massive effort. There is no apparent evidence in the near area, to support that a massive human "construction" project was performed. OTOH, we did build Pyramids. Right? There are some holes in this human-made theory.

Geological. Water, chemistry, pressures, can do this. This is where I think we are close to an explanation. A natural water-jet driven by heat and pressure from underground magma pockets, could have periodically burst (drilled) out of the ground there. I imagine a jet of superheated water, periodically ejecting debris and shooting boulders straight up into the air about two to three times the height of the cone. Possibly 80%-90% of the water instantly turned to steam and went up and away, not leaving much of a water runoff area as evidence. After being hurled straight up, the stones and debris fall straight down, and form a perfect cone at their most stable slope angle. Little by little the cone grows, and surrounds and envelops the trees.

I also think that, if it was geo sourced, the water may have contained acids, sulphurs, and various other compounds that dissolve stone and make a cement-like emulsion. It's possible that it toggled back and forth between gigantic, sputtering steam geyser, mud pot, fumarole...etc. Some of the closeup features scream hardened mud, and layers of slate, which are evidence of stone-dissolving liquids. Imagine this going on for 40 years, warming up the area in the immediate vicinity, and causing a micro-climate conducive to faster tree growth. It all sort of fits.

The smaller pile inside the cone, is probably from a more recent, smaller burst.

On the other hand, this is still a long shot, because, as far as we know, nothing like this has ever happened, and no geysers or geological features have ever produced a pile so neat and tidy.

Very interesting indeed.

etrex66
don't remove the plug the big ants will get ya

It does look like an ant burrow site, only ridiculously larger in size!

Here's a real ant burrow site in sand:

www.flickr.com...

Is the Russian site also made by a burrowing object? A very large one?

The dome in the middle of the cone could be easily explained by burrowing theory, once the hole of the burrow was sealed by inflow avalanche of debris, the upwards pressure of the burrowing object simply created the dome.

reply to post by freestonew


interesting find op! I love seeing new things that are, or even just appear to be geological formations that look out of the norm.

As far as this one goes though, i think it may be naturally formed through a process of Cymatics. For those of you who don't know what Cymatics is, it is the study of how vibrational frequencys travel through a specific medium and affect different types of materials dispersed across the surface of that medium. Here is a link for the youtubes.

long story short, my SPECULATION on this is that this rocky mound was formed somehow, either naturally or maybe it is the remnants of a very old mining operation, i dont know, but slowly over the course of 250 years i suppose vibrations in the earths crust combined with any other type of major vibration slowly deformed a mound shaped object into this odd shape. It does seem to be made up of a type of mineral that is mostly small rocks and it is probobly not very solid.

I only wish i knew more about the field geometry in which kinetic vibrations are dispersed, than it would be easier for me to purport how this shape was changed from a normal dome shape or cone, to what it is now. Maybe someone else could shed a little light on this possibly?

At any rate, what i've stated here is again, just a creative guess not what i think is absoloute truth.

reply to post by MysterX

So...if you happen to be a wealthy member, and you would like your name to be associated with an expedition to solve the mystery of the Russian cauldrons and a detour to investigate this mound...step up!

Don't I wish! Where are all these wealthy people out there, have they no sense of adventure! if i were wealthy and could get Russian cooperation I would pay for the whole thing!(Unless of course the "Have and Have Mores" are privy to some info already so they don't need to find out)

TheSmallandFast
This is very interesting; it doesn't appear to be any sort of impact crater, because an impact crater wouldn't leave that mound in the center... very intriguing. I like the comment speculating the cylindrical object may be The Ark of The Covenant though how/if it ended up in Russia is another issue in itself. I'm going to say that carbon dating to find the age of the mound is a good start but it certainly won't give a good enough answer. Carbon dating with the type of tree factored in would get you closer, because mature trees come from secondary succession which would be a good indicator of time; but that still is only telling you how old the flora on the mound is. To truly see how old the mound is you would need to look at what the mound is made of, the rocks or sand then you could get a good answer. I'd also like to point out that finding out what type of rock/sand is would be quite helpful as well, because unless it were some sort of uber rock/sand it would have slowly eroded away... Unless the mound used to be enormous...

The scientists who went there were qualified and did all of theses suggested things.

Important note...they mention in the article that he mound is still "alive"...rising and setting periodically.

Perhaps that would suggest something geological in nature.

thruthseek3r

Char-Lee

thruthseek3r

MysterX
reply to post by freestonew

 

Tunnel boring machine.

It came up, creating the crater, then for some reason went back down creating the mound in the middle...then stayed there, just under the surface becoming the mysterious cylindrical object.

But...250 years ago?

Is it possible that the Russians had an as yet unknown dabble with early tunnel boring machines (TBM's)?

It is actually funny you mention this possibility because another poster mentioned concerning the mystery of very deep cylindrical holes carved in rocks which you can not see the ending of while looking at it.

What is mind boggling if this were to be true, a tunnel boring machine, it would mean that some stuff is happening deep underground while we are not being told about it.

What does not fit the picture is the fact that it is dated 250 years ago!

Something is very mysterious about this whole thing I must admit.




Thruthseek3r

Well actually those holes don't keep going...
From jtma508 post...www.abovetopsecret.com...

On this pictures people go down to one of such holes but it just finishes with nothing.

It almost seems like samples, huge core drill samples are being taken from earth. They seem to be often in areas teeming with microbial life. Maybe someone is replenishing their planet like space craft.

As far as this OP subject I am about ready to go with something similar to, or "The Caldrons" as they are thought to rise and goes back under the surface in very out of the way places.

Thank you for the clarification, actually then with this in mind I am very curious how deep these holes really go as it was unfortunately not mentioned in the article you provided. In any way, it is still interesting to see how well done those holes, and they seems to go deep, were made, what equipment is capable of such thing?


Thruthseek3r

They seem to be pretty deep and one odd thing is sometimes there are trees right close, no equipment could have gotten close enough for drilling from the ground, nor from a helicopter I would think.

Also do they have any relation to some of the odder sinkholes. Like this from 2011.
news.blogs.cnn.com...

reply to post by Mclaneinc


an impact toilet? you mean like the flaming toilet seat that hit georgia lass and turned her into a grim reaper on "dead like me"?

very interesting! love these articles on mysteries in our world.

reply to post by freestonew


Maybe it's ET and they buried their killing machines millions of years ago and they are on their way here now
to kill us all and use us as fertilizer for their agriculture! Oh wait isn't that the plot from the remake from
war of the worlds? Maybe the earth has a bad case of gas like someone has already stated!

As a follow up to my previous post, I went ahead and looked at hundreds of impact craters, and hundreds of volcanic craters. Without a doubt, this looks like it was formed from energy within the ground, not external energy. It looks much more volcanic in nature.

VOLCANIC:
www.anntorrence.com...
cdn.c.photoshelter.com...

IMPACT:
frozenly.com...
1.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Well, frankly, it DOES look a lot like a cinder cone.
Or a pingo.

tahoe-is-walking-on.blogspot.fr...

www.taos-telecommunity.org...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

www.panoramio.com...

www.gettyimages.com...

Of course, it does not explain the "10 meter cylinder object", but...I cannot find any reference apart from this quote in the article about that.

MarioOnTheFly
It's the way you say it....like it's a given...when it's not...in fact...

Well actually I typed it, and we don't know if I am right or wrong at the present time now do we?

I dare you to find any similar cinder cone...you have your google pics...go for it.

Maybe if you double or triple dog dare me I might? Actually, no.

For you to be so casually certain as you seem to be...there would have to be ample evidence of such formations...all over the world. No cinder cone I've seen (online) has that protrusion in the middle. But, you seem to ignore that completely...as it doesn't fit in your already predetermined solution.

It's not a solution, it's an assumption. One that could be wrong I might add. However, Just because YOU didn't see any Cinder Cones with protrusions in the middle online doesn't mean that none exist out there. The World is a very big place Mario.

Also...by testimony of the the geologist in question, and by few posters here who claim geological knowledge...a cinder cone is not an accepted theory.

Wrong, we have yet to see any concrete proof.

Well...it would more likely get his name in the paper...which you seem to claim was his motive.

Impossible. I don't know the Man, and I certainly don't live in Russia.

You're not interested in doing any investigation

I am not? Are we not investigating in a certain way right now?

you were sure from the post no1.

I was? So you're a mind reader?

As if you know for sure...when you don't.

No, you're just assuming that I thought I knew for sure. Oh, and neither do you.

You could have said..."to me it resembles a cinder cone...except for the weird protrusion which I haven't seen in any of the cinder cones". This sentence allowed you to throw in your opinion without risking to make a fool out of yourself if it turns out not to be a cinder cone.

It makes no difference to me what you think I could have said, or how I should of said it. Why do you care so much about my opinion?

As for me...I think it could be maybe something we haven't encountered before. Perhaps a natural geological process...perhaps not. Perhaps some humans/group had something to do with it...and even aliens as a last resort...but am in no way sure...even the people that went there...are not sure, what it could be.

Those are interesting theories.

But you are...It's a cinder cone...because you know it. Silly Russians and their educational system.

Probably is, and I don't know anything about Russia's educational system, so I would not make a judgement concerning it. Don't come unhinged, calm down now.

Maybe I missed your qualifications...but are you perhaps an award winning geologist ?

No, are you? Are you angry with me or something? You shouldn't get all worked up over something that is really no big deal, another Man's opinion. Have a great day Mario, while on the fly buddy. ~$heopleNation

MarioOnTheFly
Important note...they mention in the article that he mound is still "alive"...rising and setting periodically.

Perhaps that would suggest something geological in nature.

Yuh think? I am so glad that you're finally coming around to the most likely explanation. Way to go Mario, and on the fly while at it! ~$heopleNation

8675309jenny

haven123
interesting close up's

That looks like it was molten slate or limestone not all that long ago!

I do not believe this is the same location, no link was provided and it looks completely different then close up pictures of the crater i have seen.

reply to post by zayonara


Where do you see signs of water having formed or in any way this?